Arminianism Deconstructed

[Van]

Reply to Don

Before I answer those two questions, I need to ask you to clarify something for me: Does 1 Cor 13:1 justify you and I speaking in the tongue of angels? Why or why not?

(I do not intend to rabbit-trail this thread into a discussion on tongues; this will be the last time I say anything about the subject in this thread. And I'm not avoiding your questions. Believe it or not, how you answer this is germane to the discussion at hand, because it will help me understand something about you...not actually your position on tongues, but something else.)

Folks, I am going to answer this question. Tongues is simply another word to refer to a language of a group. Like English is not the same tongue as Spanish. Paul's point was if he had been gifted or trained so that he could speak to a wider audience, but he did not speak with love, his words would convey noise, not the peace of God. Now, Don's point, I believe, is that because the question of whether Paul is telling us Angels speak another language from Greek, is not germane to his point about love being more important than language skills, we can nullify the information and claim Paul did not tell us Angels speak a different language from us. I say no, I understand the verse to be saying Angels do speak another language.

Paul had been to heaven, whether in the spirit or in the body I do not know, and had heard voices, perhaps in a tongue he did not understand. So,we are not to assume Paul is telling us he could actually speak in the tongue of Angels, but he is telling us even if he was gifted or trained so he could, that would be less important than the attribute of love. Therefore, this verse does not, in the slightest, justify that speaking in the tongue of Angels is a present day gift to some of mankind. And on the other side of the ledger, I am a cessationalist, one who thinks the signs and wonder gifts used to authenticate God's word ended when the foundation of Prophets and Apostles was completed in the 1st century.

 

[Don]

Folks, I am going to answer this question. Tongues is simply another word to refer to a language of a group. Like English is not the same tongue as Spanish. Paul's point was if he had been gifted or trained so that he could speak to a wider audience, but he did not speak with love, his words would convey noise, not the peace of God. Now, Don's point, I believe, is that because the question of whether Paul is telling us Angels speak another language from Greek, is not germane to his point about love being more important than language skills, we can nullify the information and claim Paul did not tell us Angels speak a different language from us. I say no, I understand the verse to be saying Angels do speak another language.

Paul had been to heaven, whether in the spirit or in the body I do not know, and had heard voices, perhaps in a tongue he did not understand. So,we are not to assume Paul is telling us he could actually speak in the tongue of Angels, but he is telling us even if he was gifted or trained so he could, that would be less important than the attribute of love. Therefore, this verse does not, in the slightest, justify that speaking in the tongue of Angels is a present day gift to some of mankind. And on the other side of the ledger, I am a cessationalist, one who thinks the signs and wonder gifts used to authenticate God's word ended when the foundation of Prophets and Apostles was completed in the 1st century.

That was beautiful, and exemplifies exactly what I'm going to try to say.

Your first question: Regarding Eph 1:4, you cannot take it "in isolation." There are several related verses in the passage, such as 1:5 and 1:11, both of which modify verse 4 and use the word proorizo (appointed or chosen beforehand). You can, as you pointed out, read this passage and believe that it's talking about corporate election; or you can believe that it's talking about individual election; or you can believe that it's talking about both. I read verses 4 (we should be holy and without blame), 7 (we have redemption...forgiveness), 9 (made known unto us), 11 (we have obtained an inheritance), 13 (whom ye trusted, after that ye heard) ... and I know that Paul addressed this to the church (verse 1), but I also am able to see where Paul is talking to both the group and the individual.

So then you emphasize James 2:5 to indicate that God credits those rich in faith; yet, reading the entire chapter, paraphrasing your words above, we are not to assume that James is telling us that we are chosen because we are rich in faith, but he's rebuking the worldly rich, who were esteeming the worldly rich and identifying them as godlier than others.

And then I read 1 Peter 1:1-2, addressed to the "strangers" throughout the lands who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God ... and I find that I can't agree with you, that God does have foreknowledge of those who will accept Him because scripture says He does. And the only compromise position I can come up with is that He does choose us in our lifetimes, when we come to saving faith, but that He always knew we would.

 

[Don]

So if I take this down to a simplified version, Van, the only difference between you and a calvinist is when God chooses to save someone? And the only difference between you and an arminian is that you believe God works faith in the individual, thus causing them to believe and be saved?

 

[Van]

Reply to Don,

That was beautiful, and exemplifies exactly what I'm going to try to say.

Your first question: Regarding Eph 1:4, you cannot take it "in isolation." There are several related verses in the passage, such as 1:5 and 1:11, both of which modify verse 4 and use the word proorizo (appointed or chosen beforehand). You can, as you pointed out, read this passage and believe that it's talking about corporate election; or you can believe that it's talking about individual election; or you can believe that it's talking about both. I read verses 4 (we should be holy and without blame), 7 (we have redemption...forgiveness), 9 (made known unto us), 11 (we have obtained an inheritance), 13 (whom ye trusted, after that ye heard) ... and I know that Paul addressed this to the church (verse 1), but I also am able to see where Paul is talking to both the group and the individual.

So then you emphasize James 2:5 to indicate that God credits those rich in faith; yet, reading the entire chapter, paraphrasing your words above, we are not to assume that James is telling us that we are chosen because we are rich in faith, but he's rebuking the worldly rich, who were esteeming the worldly rich and identifying them as godlier than others.

And then I read 1 Peter 1:1-2, addressed to the "strangers" throughout the lands who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God ... and I find that I can't agree with you, that God does have foreknowledge of those who will accept Him because scripture says He does. And the only compromise position I can come up with is that He does choose us in our lifetimes, when we come to saving faith, but that He always knew we would.

First, we are not talking about James 2:5 taken in isolation. James is saying we should not cozy up to those who rank high according to the world's value system, but instead should cozy up to those who rank high in God's value system. Thus rich in faith, rather than rich in worldly things.
Therefore your effort to nullify the verse seem unwarranted.

Next, lets reconsider what Ephesians 1:4 says in context. Paul is telling existent born again individuals who have been individually chosen and placed in Christ, about the blessings of being in the Beloved. Now the very first blessing Paul enumerates is that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. This could be a corporate election.
Then Paul goes on and says He chose us in Him "to be" blameless.... So this election before the foundation did not at that time result in our being blameless. Therefore we as individuals were not put in Christ at that time.

Next it says we who are chosen are predestined to be, again a future action, adopted as sons. When Paul uses the word adopted, he is not referring to being placed in Christ, but rather of being, at Christ's second coming, bodily resurrected. That is our "adoption."

Next, referring to the existing individuals, we are now "In Him, verse 7, and have, past tense, redemption through the blood, so this must occur after Christ's sacrifice on the cross was accepted by God as proven by the resurrection of Jesus.
Thus the two elections, corporate then individual can be seen in the passage.

And this view fits perfectly with James 2:5. Note verse Eph. 1:13, for we were put in Christ after we believed! It all fits together.

Last point, say I have a plan, made days ago, to buy several apples from the bin of apples in the store, the ones who are firm and red. So this plan, when I execute it, is being carried out by the foreknowledge of Van, and yet I did not choose which individual apples, only the criteria of selection. This view then addresses the meaning of 1 Peter 1:2 where individuals were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. What Calvinists do, without warrant, is to add into the verse what the foreknowledge included.

Think about it this way, why would God choose individuals before creation and then choose them again after creation? The only basis would be a corporate election before creation, followed by an individual election based on His predetermined and foreknow criteria of selection after creation. This is the only view that actually fits what is said.

 

[Van]

Effort at correction

So if I take this down to a simplified version, Van, the only difference between you and a calvinist is when God chooses to save someone? And the only difference between you and an arminian is that you believe God works faith in the individual, thus causing them to believe and be saved?

No, Don, this totally misrepresents what I have said. Calvinists deny that God elects individuals for salvation during their lifetime after they have lived without mercy. They say from the beginning, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 really means in or at the beginning, and therefore is consistent with Ephesians 1:4. Not what scripture says.

Calvinists say God elected individuals for salvation unconditionally, but James 2:5 says God elects those who are rich in faith, who love God and are therefore heirs to the promise God made to those who love Him.

As far as the Arminian view, which is also wrong in my opinion, I believe God elects those whose faith, "after having believed" (Ephesians 1:13) He credits as righteousness, Romans 4:5. Thus Arminians view has God electing individuals before creation (which I believe scripture teaches is wrong) and Arminians believe God elects based on foreseen faith (which I believe scripture teaches is wrong.)

 

[Don]

First, we are not talking about James 2:5 taken in isolation. James is saying we should not cozy up to those who rank high according to the world's value system, but instead should cozy up to those who rank high in God's value system. Thus rich in faith, rather than rich in worldly things.
Therefore your effort to nullify the verse seem unwarranted.

My only question about this statement is "those who rank high in God's value system." I think I know what you meant, but would you please clarify further? It could be interpreted, by the use of the words "rank high" that you're saying there's a ranking system for believers; but I think what you're actually saying is those that have belief, not necessarily that one believer is "better" or "has more faith" than another.

Next, lets reconsider what Ephesians 1:4 says in context. Paul is telling existent born again individuals who have been individually chosen and placed in Christ, about the blessings of being in the Beloved. Now the very first blessing Paul enumerates is that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. This could be a corporate election.
Then Paul goes on and says He chose us in Him "to be" blameless.... So this election before the foundation did not at that time result in our being blameless. Therefore we as individuals were not put in Christ at that time.

Where did you get the future tense "to be"? The verse actually says "should be" and is a present infinitive. Changing it to a future tense changes the context.

Next it says we who are chosen are predestined to be, again a future action, adopted as sons. When Paul uses the word adopted, he is not referring to being placed in Christ, but rather of being, at Christ's second coming, bodily resurrected. That is our "adoption."

Torrey would seem to agree with you, using Romans 8:23; Henry and others do not, instead explaining it as the adoption is given to us by the Spirit at regeneration, using Romans 8:15.

Taken in that context (Romans 8:15 followed by 8:23), one could make the case that we're talking a spiritual adoption and a physical adoption; spiritual that occurs at the time of our regeneration, and physical at a future time.

So if the author of both books presented such a thing in one book, then it becomes a question of which adoption Paul is talking about in Ephesians. The verbiage throughout Ephesians 1 is primarily past or present tense; thus one concludes that we are talking about the spiritual adoption.

Further, you claim that the phrasing "unto the adoption of children" indicates a future physical event; however, the preceeding words negate this. Taken in the context of the sentence: "Having (past/present tense) predestinated (decided/appointed beforehand) us unto the adoption of children...." Well, something was decided in the past to happen in the future; this doesn't mean, as you've indicated, that we're still waiting for it to happen; and doesn't necessarily mean that we're still waiting for the adoption, especially since the verbiage--as you point out later in verse 13--indicates that we've already been sealed in Him.

Next, referring to the existing individuals, we are now "In Him, verse 7, and have, past tense, redemption through the blood, so this must occur after Christ's sacrifice on the cross was accepted by God as proven by the resurrection of Jesus.
Thus the two elections, corporate then individual can be seen in the passage.

And this view fits perfectly with James 2:5. Note verse Eph. 1:13, for we were put in Christ after we believed! It all fits together.

Last point, say I have a plan, made days ago, to buy several apples from the bin of apples in the store, the ones who are firm and red. So this plan, when I execute it, is being carried out by the foreknowledge of Van, and yet I did not choose which individual apples, only the criteria of selection. This view then addresses the meaning of 1 Peter 1:2 where individuals were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. What Calvinists do, without warrant, is to add into the verse what the foreknowledge included.

Think about it this way, why would God choose individuals before creation and then choose them again after creation? The only basis would be a corporate election before creation, followed by an individual election based on His predetermined and foreknow criteria of selection after creation. This is the only view that actually fits what is said.

This is where the analogy hiccups (notice I did not say "fail"): This presumes that you have no idea what apples will be there. Why is that important? Because it begs the question, did you create the apples? Of course, in your analogy, you did not; but in the comparison of your analogy, did God create each and every one of us individually?

 

[Van]

Hi Don, first I demonstrated James 2:5 teaching about conditional election is contextual. You did not address that, but asked yet another question.

Next the verb to be (einai) is in deed a present infinitive, which means we were chosen with the goal or purpose of being holy. I did not alter the meaning of the word, and used the translation found in the ESV and HCSB. The NASB says "would be". Should be, however suggests God will not accomplish His purpose of election. Not the best.

In the context, corporate election of those the Redeemer would redeem, would then be for the purpose that those redeemed would be holy and blameless.

Just look at every usage and adoption means resurrection in all but one of the cases.

No, you cannot make the case of adoption as used in Ephesians as referring to being made a son spiritually. That is called being born again in Paul's word choices.

And finally, my apples example does not hiccup, it explains the usage of the word in a manner different from Calvinism. I know you want to redefine the word to mean what the modern dictionary says foreknowledge means, foreseeing the future, but that is not the biblical meaning of the word, it means to use knowledge from the past, such as a predetermined plan in the present.

Bottom line, you want to say scripture does not mean what it says because of this that or something else. I say scripture means what it says, and it says God elects individuals for salvation from the beginning, not before the foundation of the world, based on faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

 

[Don]

I'm saying that scripture doesn't say what it says? No; I'm saying that scripture doesn't say what you're saying it says.

Until such a day comes that I've done more study and determine that you're correct, or vice versa, I guess we're at an impasse.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm saying that scripture doesn't say what it says? No; I'm saying that scripture doesn't say what you're saying it says.

Until such a day comes that I've done more study and determine that you're correct, or vice versa, I guess we're at an impasse.

Don (and Van) may I commend you on the preceding conversation. This is precisely how those holding to faith in Christ should discuss, debate, discern this thing we call theology. Kudos to you both.

 

[DaChaser1]

This reflects the mistaken view of classical Arminianism. He believed God chose foreseen individuals before creation, same as Calvinism, except He asserted God chose foreseen individuals who God foresaw would freely come to faith.

This whole perspective is built on the idea that Ephesians 1:4 means: He chose us in Him [individually] before the foundation of the world, but that view creates paradoxes galore when viewed with the many verses that teach God chooses us individually during our lifetime after He credits our faith as righteousness. Rather than correct their understanding of this verse (Ephesians 1:4), they nullify several passages, letting the tail wag the dog.

wrong from biblical perspective here!

God grants to us repentence/faith to be able to believe in jesus and be saved!

Election by God regenerates/faith in us by the Hs, respond to gospel NOT

Gospel faith regenerates than get elected!

 

[Van]

Reply to fictious assertions

wrong from biblical perspective here!

God grants to us repentence/faith to be able to believe in jesus and be saved!

Election by God regenerates/faith in us by the Hs, respond to gospel NOT

Gospel faith regenerates than get elected!

God's Son and His revelation allows us to repent and turn to God in faith unless God intervenes and precludes it, i.e. Romans 11. The assertion all unregenerate people are unable to believe is utterly unbiblical. No verse will be forthcoming in support contextually considered.

Next the order of salvation is God credits our faith as righteousness or not, but if He does, then He places us spiritually in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise a new creation born anew from able. But we are not put in Christ and then sealed in Christ until after we believe, Ephesians 1:13.

We are regenerated or born anew when we are put in Christ, not while we are separated from Christ, for we are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5.

Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study and does not stand up to actual study of God's word.